Quote from: danskmacabre;1079715Mainly as the spells don't feel like they are that explainable in RP terms.
The spell Vicious mockery is an example of this. It seems to work with any creature, regardless of whether it can understand you or have intelligence.

Yeah this would be my top priority for the eventual 6ed. Explain how shit works in RP terms so you can adjudicate stuff like this and don't make everything so black and white that you don't need a GM to adjudicate stuff like this.

Quote from: SHARK;1079735Interesting, Christopher Brady. I can see your point. I'm not certain that if you pull much from the Celtic/Norse mythology that Bards should *necessarily* be "Jack of all trades". That's definitely a later medieval era/Renaissance flavour tacked onto them, I think. Which is also where I think the designers drew most of their inspiration for the Bard from--the Renaissance era motif, which is, by then, what the medieval Bard had *become*.

Well that's the issue - the 2e, 3e, 4e, 5e D&D Bard is not really a Bard, he's more an adventuring minstrel or troubadour. If you want a manly Celtic Bard or Norse Skald you pretty much have to go back to the 1e AD&D Bard, or there's the very nice Castles & Crusades Bard.

I don't think the 5e Bard is useless, despite not being very manly. A female friend played a cool male Bard as a kind of 'Jonny Depp Plays Don Juan' lothario character in my Wilderlands game, and he certainly contributed well on the battlefield as well as in the bedroom.... he was brave too, a Valour Bard AIR, although not actually very good at fighting... I remember him bravely holding off the lizardmen in a cave while his friends fell back... he ended up temporarily dead with a trident through his chest.

Also in my Wilderlands, I used the Bard class as the base for Lady Meda, a powerful Lore Mistress/Wise Woman character, kind of a female Gandalf. Worked very well for that.

Lady Meda, Servant of Mycr  
Medium humanoid (human)
Armor Class 12 (15 with mage armor) (10/13, +2 DEX)
Hit Points 75 (15d8+15)
Proficiency +5
Speed 30 ft.
STR 8 (−1) DEX 14 (+2) CON 12 (+1) INT 14 (+2) WIS 16 (+3) CHA 20 (+5)
Saving Throws Wisdom +9 Charisma +11, +1 to all with robes
Skills Arcana +12 (Expertise), Persuasion +15 (Expertise), Perception +8.
Senses passive Perception 18

Spellcasting. Meda is a 15th level Bard-list spellcaster, spellcasting ability is Charisma (spell save DC 18, +10 to hit with spell attacks).

Cantrips (4): friends, light, mage hand, mending
Spells

She knows the following 19 spells:
1st level (4 slots): Burning Hands, Detect Magic, Mage Armor, Healing Word, Animal Messenger
2nd level (3 slots): Detect Thoughts, Suggestion
3rd level (3 slots): Counterspell, Dispel Magic, Fireball, Revivify, Speak with Dead
4th level (3 slots): Dimension Door
5th level (2 slots): Scrying, Raise Dead
6th level (1 slot)  Globe of Invulnerability
7th level (1 slot) Fire Storm (as Sorcerer), Teleport
8th level (1 slot) Power Word Stun

SA: Song of Rest +5 hp recovery on short rest to those who can hear it.

MI: 1d4+4 potions of healing,  2d4+2 doses of Keoghtom's Ointment, Cloak of Elvenkind, the Heart of Dur - a giant ruby which functions as a Stone of Controlling Earth Elementals. Robe of Resistance +1 to Saves

In 3e-era I ran a Bard who was basically a scary smart drill sergeant. Mithral Breastplate, longsword and shield. His instrument was a war horn and his bellowing commands ("move it maggot! Hit them harder!"). Between the bonuses he could get from his knowledge checks (via Skill Tricks) and Inspire Competence he hit as hard as a baseline fighter in melee... while also making the party fighter and barbarian fight better too (they converted the bonus to hit into twice that to damage with their two-handed weapons via power attacks)... then when the enemy archers were about to skewer us as we charged across the bridge... GLITTERDUST! Blind archers are useless archers. It also marked their location for the wizard who was hanging back several hundred feet to drop a fireball on their heads.

In 4E the Skald variant of the bard was absolutely a frontline fighter. My go-to daily aura (which due to Skald mechanics could be used for every daily slot and lasted all encounter long... so basically every encounter) gave all allies continuous combat advantage on any enemy within 30 feet of me. I played a half-elf who snagged a warlock attack that could be used in melee and range with their racial trait and fluffed it as their "blackfire blade" which they used to trigger their skald at-wills which buffed their allies and picked encounter attacks that triggered off hits or minor actions to further the carnage. The rest of the party considered them the most dangerous member of the party.

In 5e I play a College of Swords Bard who IS something of a fop... but he's also a master duelist whose flourishes help tear through the enemy while using very subtle magic to tilt the battle in his allies' favor. Basically I play him as a D'Artagnan-like figure with his magic being more a function of inspiration and luck than arcane power. His best friend is a tiny invisible dragon named Pidge who may or may not be imaginary... but when he spends the actions to call out for Pidge's help things generally catch on fire (Mage Initiate with Firebolt and Mage Hand... because sometimes Pidge likes to engage in mischief beyond blowing things up)... basically any of the overt magic is the work of Pidge and I've left whether the dragon is actually real (stranger things have happened) or not entirely the DM (who seems to enjoy keeping it nebulous... half the party thinks Pidge is real, another half is convinced my PC is just a lunatic and half think the dragon is real AND I'm a lunatic... there's overlap in the first two).

In short... what is this "useless feminine" garbage you are spewing? Bards are awesome when they do their job of being force multipliers for the party. You help make your party awesome and they appreciate you for it!

WotC bards are at least half designed as support characters.  They work better when the player is willing to embrace that role, much like the TSR era clerics.  WotC has gradually gotten better at understanding how to make a support character.  In 5E, they finally came to terms with something I've been complaining about since they got the license:

In class-based, niche-focused D&D, you can't really make a Jack of all Trades that works well (with the usual exceptions for those relatively rare players that can milk anything).  What you can do is make a character that splits between two things, roughly 50/50, or even better with a notable slant, maybe 60/40 or so.  Most players can handle that just fine, as long as the slant is something they are willing to run with.

The 5E Bard is a "full power" caster with a highly limited spell list and selection, who is also very deeply and broadly skilled.  I think the base is about a 50/50 character (magic/skills), but I could be off.  Then the bardic traditions skew towards a focus, with "valor" left for that rare player that wants to skew towards a 3rd thing (and can handle it).   You could make the case also that the base 5E bard is a 60/40 (skill, magic) character.

Now if WotC would only internalize this lesson of not diffusing character ability too much, they could finally design a halfway decent ranger.

The best rendition of what a D&D bard should do in a party is The Knight's Tale version of Chaucer.  You don't have to like the movie, but look up the clips of him talking to the crowds, how he sounds when he's bullshitting them.  That is what a Bard does in D&D.

The fact that they can fight, blast, thieve and heal are just icing and not what they're really good at.

Quote from: SHARK;1079713Greetings!

I've read where some people have a passionate dislike of Bards, seeing them as feminine and useless idiots, that add little to an adventuring group, and are only worthy as a footnote in the cultural commentary of the campaign as part of the cmpaign's furniture.

I've wondered, like, geesus, you know? Throughout Celtic mythology, Bards were heroic, skilled, important people. Capable of fighting, very intelligent, and wise in lore, knowledge, and tribal geneologies and tribal laws. In Finnish and Norse mythology, the Bard may not have quite the exalted social status that Bards enjoyed in Celtic society, but Bards were none the less socially prominent and highly respected individuals. In all three traditions, Bards are deeply involved in heroic adventures, romances, epic quests, poetry, sagas, as well as numerous local social challenges, stories, and politics. Very interesting characters, and certainly a class that should be able to contribute just fine in any adventuring group.

What do you think? Thematically, do you think Bards are good and worthwhile? Mechanically, in D&D5E, is there something flawed about Bards that makes them a sub-par adventuring companion?

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

The most common complaint I have heard about Bards is that they are combat ineffective to which I respond that the Bard is about as combat ineffective as a Predator drone. Bards are designed to be Jack-Of-All-Trades and so are not supposed to be front line combatants, they are great at supporting the party in combat. Need a healer but the Cleric is busy? Bard. Need a Magic-User but the Wizard is busy? Bard. Need a Fighter for some missile weapon support but the Ranger is busy? Bard.

I think that players fall back on the nellie queen overly effeminate stereotype persona for Bards because they can't roleplay for sour owl poop and would feel outside of their safe space if they tried to run a Bard as a believable character. I had a DM who would pull this and try to puppeteer my character for laughs, I left that game.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1079731That's because they ARE useless at what a lot of people mistakenly believe what they are, even the designers sometimes.

Bards are useless at being a Jack of All Trades.

What they are useful as, is the party 'face', the person that goes and deals with the social aspects of the game/life.  You need to speak to a king or a merchant lord?  The Bard should know what to say, to flatter or intimidate as necessary.  You don't send the Rogue to talk to the guards, after all.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1079833The best rendition of what a D&D bard should do in a party is The Knight's Tale version of Chaucer.  You don't have to like the movie, but look up the clips of him talking to the crowds, how he sounds when he's bullshitting them.  That is what a Bard does in D&D.

The fact that they can fight, blast, thieve and heal are just icing and not what they're really good at.

Something tells me that you aren't getting the most out of the Bard class......by your own choice.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1079731That's because they ARE useless at what a lot of people mistakenly believe what they are, even the designers sometimes.

Bards are useless at being a Jack of All Trades.

What they are useful as, is the party 'face', the person that goes and deals with the social aspects of the game/life.  You need to speak to a king or a merchant lord?  The Bard should know what to say, to flatter or intimidate as necessary.  You don't send the Rogue to talk to the guards, after all.

Quote from: SHARK;1079735Greetings!

Interesting, Christopher Brady. I can see your point. I'm not certain that if you pull much from the Celtic/Norse mythology that Bards should *necessarily* be "Jack of all trades". That's definitely a later medieval era/Renaissance flavour tacked onto them, I think. Which is also where I think the designers drew most of their inspiration for the Bard from--the Renaissance era motif, which is, by then, what the medieval Bard had *become*. But that wasn't very close to what the Bard actually was *historically*, before the Renaissance, in the old Celtic and Norse and Finnish lands. Back then, the Bard was a warrior, but also something of a religious figure, a spiritual figure, a man knowledgable of ancient lore and mysteries, as well as someone with a keen knowledge of a people's history, and oaths, laws, and genealogies. For peoples that had no writing, or very limited writing, someone with a Bard's skills, knowledge, and finely-trained memory, was an enormous resource, for everyone, whether he was a common farmer, a local warrior, or a prominent Lord.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

All of the above is true, but as soon as AD&D 2E came out all character classes stopped being about what inspired their creation from medieval times and instead became what was important to players within the game.

Quote from: SHARK;1079734Greetings!

Interesting, Danskmacabre. You like them the *least* of all the 5E classes. I think some of their spells are kind of wierd, too though.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Yeah, I don't HATE the Bard class and I LIKE the idea of a Bard class, I just don;t think it was done that well in 5e.
Like has been pointed out, they are very useful in pure RP situations.
The open table 5e campaign I help run is all mapped out, so characters or teams of characters can even buy deeds to a  hex area, which they need to clear/investigate to settle down on.
However, even getting to that point requires investigations and RP in cities etc with NPC s to get information, so being able to talk to people well, a good background knowledge etc is a very useful thing.

The main thing for me is often the spells just aren't described very well, so it all feels a bit like 4th Ed DnD with Bards and their spells.

Quote from: Daztur;1079737Yeah this would be my top priority for the eventual 6ed. Explain how shit works in RP terms so you can adjudicate stuff like this and don't make everything so black and white that you don't need a GM to adjudicate stuff like this.

Agreed, this is my beef with the 5e Bard.

Quote from: jhkim;1079717We're all feminine compared to big, manly SHARK.  

I heard they don't let you in the Marines if you played a bard.

I always saw bards more as Keith Richards types with a dash of Robbin Hood than heroic fighter types.

Castles & Crusades has an excellent bard class. I prefer it to the D&D versions which is basically a Mage/Thief, but either an over or under powered version depending on the edition. The C&C bard isn't a spellcaster and that's to the benefit of the class.

But like so many things D&D touches, the "D&D bard" is deeply divorced from its historical and/or literary roots. And that's okay as long as the class is interesting and useful. I have no problems with a "support class" or "hybrid class" which isn't as "powerful" as a prime class because lots of players are drawn to characters like the Bard for their flavor, not mechanics.

Back in AD&D, my fave character were Gnome Illusionist / Thief who was never going to be the Big Dog in the party and I was never as good as the pure Thief or the Mage, but that was totally fine because my G-I/Ts were were just fun to roleplay.  

Also, WTF with bards being "feminine" or "idiots" Where the hell did that noise come from?

Quote from: Spinachcat;1079858Castles & Crusades has an excellent bard class. I prefer it to the D&D versions which is basically a Mage/Thief, but either an over or under powered version depending on the edition. The C&C bard isn't a spellcaster and that's to the benefit of the class.

But like so many things D&D touches, the "D&D bard" is deeply divorced from its historical and/or literary roots. And that's okay as long as the class is interesting and useful. I have no problems with a "support class" or "hybrid class" which isn't as "powerful" as a prime class because lots of players are drawn to characters like the Bard for their flavor, not mechanics.

Back in AD&D, my fave character were Gnome Illusionist / Thief who was never going to be the Big Dog in the party and I was never as good as the pure Thief or the Mage, but that was totally fine because my G-I/Ts were were just fun to roleplay.  

Also, WTF with bards being "feminine" or "idiots" Where the hell did that noise come from?

Greetings!

Hey Spinachcat! The "Feminine" and "Idiots" part of my title was inspired by my reading someone, somewhere saying that Bards were "Useless, Foppish and Stupid." I'm paraphrasing, but that's the source of my inspiration. I can certainly see room for a foppish, feminine Bard, LOL--but I certainly don't think that is the only flavour for them. The historical roots are definitely distinctly different from the Bard's more recent Renaissance focus and the focus that D&D imagery usually promotes.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: Spinachcat;1079858But like so many things D&D touches, the "D&D bard" is deeply divorced from its historical and/or literary roots. And that's okay as long as the class is interesting and useful. I have no problems with a "support class" or "hybrid class" which isn't as "powerful" as a prime class because lots of players are drawn to characters like the Bard for their flavor, not mechanics.

I think the cleric and the bard in particular are odd archetypes that are mostly unique to D&D rather than being from popular literature or film. (There are precedents for them, but they are either obscure or not a close fit.)

The bard is supposed to be a support character and social specialist. Within fantasy fiction, though, usually the social lead is the most powerful character - like Gandalf or Aragorn. There is sometimes a social specialist archetype in modern genres, like Face of the A-Team or Inara in Firefly. I think that sort of social specialist usually is based on a more complicated social structure than is presumed in fantasy. For these modern genres, the social specialist is more of an actor and/or high-society fop. I think that might drive viewing the social character as less masculine.

But in fantasy or post-apocalyptic, society is usually supposed to be more straightforward - and the social lead tends to be just the toughest/wisest character.

Quote from: danskmacabre;1079715The Bard is an interesting class and overall I don't have a problem with it, although it's the class I like the least of all the 5e classes.
Mainly as the spells don't feel like they are that explainable in RP terms.
The spell Vicious mockery is an example of this. It seems to work with any creature, regardless of whether it can understand you or have intelligence.
Then it does Psychic damage. It doesn't explain why or how that works.

Regarding mockery, I think of it from a myth of a Norse skald who once insulted a man so viciously that boils broke out on his face.

I think the idea is a magical extension of social mockery. In a social situation, the person is damaged in their social standing - not because they understand the insult, but because the audience hears the insult. For vicious mocker, the universe hears the insult and the person's literal life is damaged.